Lowestoft Online - Why 'some' people may not need a TV License.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online > Community > General Community > The Lounge > Topic: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License.

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this board.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] | Go Down

Author

Topic: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. (Read 1767 times)

CybertraxUK

Guest

Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Posted: 05 April 2011 at 01:21 AM »

Due to many people accusing me of breaking the law (whilst taking threads off topic) I decided it may help to explain - once again - why I believe I and others like myself am exempt from needing a license. I discovered this several years ago whilst browsing the web where others had succeeded using similar arguments, and I have built upon this.

Fact number one: TV Licensing is not operated by the BBC. In actual fact, TV Licensing is operated by a private company, Capita, to process TV License applications and payments. This is subcontracted to them by the BBC Trust, who have the right under law to collect payments for and issue TV Licenses.
- http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/

Fact number two: TV Licensing has on many occasions misled consumers, and have consequently been fined by both the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) and also Ofcomm (Office of Communications).

Fact number three: Whatever TV Licensing say on their website or to their consumers, they are bound like everyone else to follow the law. In particular, their entire business model must follow the Communications Act 2004.

I believe that I do not need a TV License if I do not watch television 'as it is broadcast'. This is because of the letters that TV Licensing send out, and is also due to my understanding of the Communications Act. It is my belief that if a person watches any type of media file (whether it be something recorded off the television at an earlier date, or a file from the internet) that is not being simul-cast then the requirement to have a TV License has not been met. The term simul-cast relates to it being simultaneously broadcast over the television airwaves. In order to back up my claim, I have for many years been in correspondence with TV Licensing. I do 'not' simply ignore their letters as many other people would do - this isn't a sensible approach. I would much rather be upfront and honest in my approach.

I have attached three documents scanned in earlier; I have many others but they are similar in nature. Two of the documents are letters received by myself from TV Licensing. In the letter dated 2009, they confirm that a person only needs a TV License if they are 'watching' a television programme live, or close-to-live. In that case, using a PVR (personal video recorder) such as Sky+ to pause live TV would be classed under that, and you would need a license.

The other letter dated 2010 confirms that a person does 'not' need a license to watch programmes shown on the BBC iPlayer; this is also relevant (although they fail to mention it) to other video on demand services such as 4 on Demand or Sky Player. Interestingly, this was a source of huge argument against the BBC and the BBC Trust; originally the BBC wanted to make people have a TV License in order to use the iPlayer but the BBC Trust overruled them and said this was contrary to the Communications Act. The BBC are, however, about to use IP technology to charge overseas viewers an access charge to view BBC media, thus in effect managing to charge people overseas a form of TV License!

The third document is a newspaper clipping sent to me a while back from my father (his underlining). This article quotes a study made by the BBC Trust, stating that viewers of on demand media services do 'not' need a TV License, and confirming that only when watching live streams such as watching BBC1 on their website you 'do' need a TV License.

It is my firm belief that anyone who 'just' watches media files at a later date to when they have been streamed live, does not need a TV License. I have written on multiple occasions (every time I relocate) to TV Licensing themselves explaining these beliefs, and although they do not admit I am right, on each occasion they write back stating they will cease to continue demands for License payment. In my view, they would not do this unless they privately agreed that my views were correct. It is also my belief that the reason that they will never admit this is because of the vast amount of publicity this would cause, and the vast loss of income that would ensue when people around the country cancelled their licenses.

Having said all that, I also believe that the vast majority of people will still watch TV 'live' and therefore they still legally need to obtain and pay for their TV License.

Whether the actual need to have a TV License in the first place as a means to pay for the BBC is I think a different topic altogether, although I do feel personally that we should maybe look at how other countries survive without charging a License fee - people overseas are amazed at our antiquated ways!!

I hope I have explained my beliefs on this in a way that others can understand. I would ask when making comments about this that people refrain from saying things like calling me a criminal for my actions as has happened in other threads - this is libellous and not helpful in the slightest!

The Communications Act 2004 can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/made.
The relevant piece for me is the following:
In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
As signed by Tessa Jowell!

The TV Licensing website is currently misleading people with factural inaccuracies. They are stating the following:
Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+
You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box.
This is wrong. The Communications Act 2004 does 'not' mention this anywhere that I can see, and as such TV Licensing is not allowed to try and 'add' this into the law! If anyone can spot where I have missed this, then I would be grateful to have this pointed out to me.

I would like to apologise for the tiny pictures, it was the only way to get them under the 150k limit on picture filesizing.

TV Licensing 3.gif (62.67 KB, 426x599 - viewed 179 times.) TV Licensing 2.gif (54.68 KB, 516x604 - viewed 175 times.)
	Logged

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #1 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 01:22 AM »

TV Licensing 1.gif (142.98 KB, 663x290 - viewed 170 times.)
	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #2 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:25 AM »

Am I missing something here? Nowhere in those two letters can I see where they tell you you don't need a licence.

Quote

In the letter dated 2009, they confirm that a person only needs a TV License if they are 'watching' a television programme live, or close-to-live.

I can't see that. It mentions receiving, not watching. Your PVR is receiving the live broadcast. You need a licence in my opinion.

In fact they have been very clear in the first one by saying

Quote

"I can only advise you therefore that if you are receiving a television programme service, namely one which has been streamed live, or nearly live to your equipment, a licence is required"

So even though you aren't watching TV at the time it's broadcast, you are receiving the programme as it's broadcast in order to record it.

The reason they're not pursuing you is because you've stated you refuse them entry to you property. I assume this is because you don't want to get caught. Surely if you know you're on the right side of the law you would have no problem letting them in?
They probably haven't pursued it further because they assume, as they've told you you need a licence that you've been out and bought one.

That's my interpretation anyway.


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

George27

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 1489

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #3 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 08:05 AM »

I understood it that you need a licence to receive a live signal, whether or not it is being watched live. If you use your TV just to watch pre-recorded DVD's or tapes, then no licence is required.

With more streamed programs via the internet comming on-stream, I can foresee a time in the future when when the regulations are changed.


	Logged

ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION

cyclelowestoft.blogspot.com

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #4 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:21 AM »

Remember, it doesnt really matter what TV Licensing themselves say, although itcan be helpful. What 'is' important is the wording of the Communications Act 2004. This is the law that TV Licensing are bound to follow, it is the very law that states who does and doesnt need a license, and what type of license.

For example, another thing that TV Licensing 'forget' to mention is that if you repair TVs, you dont need a TV License! So if you repair TV sets at home, then your home does not need a license. This has actually been proven in court when TV Licensing took someone to court and he provided to the magistrates proof of his trade alongside the actual Communications Act; not only did he win the case but he was awarded compensation for his time being wasted.

It is hard to get your head around the fact that TV Licensing is not an official government business - they make it look very official and they deliberately do this in order to get the 'sheep' to do what they want. But once you accept that TV Licensing is a privately run business and does not always tell the truth, and you are allowed to question their practices, then questions start to pop into your head. It is not about breaking the law, it is about upholding the law. In particular, it is about making sure that one private company does not use the lack of knowledge of the law against you.


	Logged

malcolm

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 7526

I Love Lowestoft!

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #5 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:37 AM »

All this totally misses the moral issue. If nobody paid their tv license how would the BBC be funded? Everthing has to be paid for. We have quality television the best in the world with no ad s. So whats the problem in paying for it?


	Logged

Forever Yellow

Jamesw82

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 2992

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #6 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:41 AM »

We may have no ads but we have our fair share of annoying repetitive trailers instead!

Why should some people be forced to pay for a service such as the BBC thats institutionally politically biased anyway.

It's an interesting point because it does need to be funded in some way.


	Logged

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #7 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:53 AM »

Ah, and that shows another lack of understanding of how the BBC works - not anyones fault as they rely on this.

Like many other television production companies, the BBC make a lot of money from selling on the TV programmes they produce to other channels. For example, around 14% of all Sky subscription charges are paid to the BBC to allow their channels to be shown on Sky. Another example, when Top Gear is shown on foreign channels, the BBC have been paid for this. A third example is that of merchandising. Back when they were hugely popular, the BBC made a lot of money in royalties for every soft toy or mug etc sold bearing the mark of the Teletubbies.

The BBC make a lot of money from selling programmes to other channels, much the same as all other production companies. This was shown when the government criticized the BBC last year over this issue, and have threatened to investigate fully the 'need' for a license fee in, I believe, 2018.

We are used to paying a license fee in this country, because it has been around so long. We have grown up with it, and so we are taught that this is normal. And TV Licensing rely on this. They rely on us paying money year in year out without ever questioning the legalities of it all. And like sheep, we follow the herd, dutifully doing so 'in the greater good'.

Well, I question 'their' morality in making us believe something that isn't true. If the law states that a person does not need a TV license, why should that person have to buy one 'for moral reasons'? It is like saying a person does not own a car, but they should buy a tax disc otherwise the cost of tax discs will go up for everyone else?!

By the by, images were scanned in using a scanner kindly donated by Annie and Martin through Waveney Freegle.


	Logged

malcolm

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 7526

I Love Lowestoft!

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #8 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 12:17 PM »

I dont agree with Dave. Yes they sell programmes. This income is used to make more.

The bit about not owning a car and still buying a license makes no sence as a comparison as you would be getting no bennefit from not owning the car. You are getting all the bennefits of television without paying.

It would be interesting to know what portion of the total income is selling programmes compared to income from license fee.


	Logged

Forever Yellow

nauticaljane

Super Member

Posts: 219

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #9 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 12:54 PM »

I believe you need a public entertainment licence to play very loud music in the street,as you do on occasions, outside the age concern.It just seems you are against paying up for any type of licence.Society has to have rules otherwise you get spongers getting for free, what others have infact, paid to subsidise.If everyone did that with the loopholes you imply it would spread to other things.The fact you haven't been fined is not fair on those who have.


	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #10 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 01:56 PM »

Quote

Part 4 E+W+S+N.I. Communications Act 2003
Licensing of TV reception
363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part..

Quote

Meaning of “television receiver”
9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

So how does this say you don't need a licence if you record tv at the time it's broadcast and watch it later?
Neither of these quotes are from TV Licencing. First one is from the Communications Act 2003, and second quote is The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #11 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 03:15 PM »

Technically if you are recording the television programme from your television, you require a TV licence. It is being transmitted from a satellite. nono

Why dont you stop thinking you are superior and by the damn thing like the rest of us.


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14356

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #12 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 06:43 PM »

Why are so surprised you are getting a poor reaction, it certainly feels to most people who pay up their money every year that you are bucking the system and of course that causes ill feeling Why you have ever posted about it on a public website I will never know and was probably a very foolish move, you really cant expect to be patted on the back and told youre a good fellow when you are doing what most would consider cheating. I also cant imagine how you are getting away with it unless the licencing people are so fed up with your petty nit picking points they have given up. Why don't you make yourself feel better and pay up like the rest of the country or failing that please please remove your signature it is sOOOOOO hypercritical - if youre doing something you dont want anyone to know about perhaps you shouldnt be doing it in the first place


	Logged

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #13 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:09 PM »

Why dont you live up to your signature? Stop boasting about getting free things when others are struggling to find where the money for the next meal is coming from. Working damn hard to keep a roof above their head. If our out of work T.V is considered a luxury.


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

Dave01

Veteran Member

Posts: 308

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #14 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:15 PM »

Quote from: nauticaljane on 05 April 2011 at 12:54 PM

If you are a shop or restaurant or most businesses actually; especially where public are present, you will need a PPL and PRS licence too.


	Logged

snowdrop

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 4694

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #15 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:56 PM »

if you blind get it free


	Logged

Jamesw82

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 2992

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #16 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 07:58 PM »

Quote from: 728 on 05 April 2011 at 07:09 PM

Why dont you live up to your signature?

I think you'll find he is!


	Logged

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #17 Posted: 05 April 2011 at 10:06 PM »

I am not sitting back when someone is boasting about getting free T.V when i work damn hard to pay for everything. Its always the case those who dont work get everything, and those who do work just get by, albeit honestly.


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

nauticaljane

Super Member

Posts: 219

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #18 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 11:06 AM »

I agree 728 its bad enough not to buy a TV licence, but to rub peoples noses in it because they don't and boast about it,beggars belief.Especially with everyone struggling at the moment and the one and only luxury they have is the TV.Some might even have to give that up ,and he's just bragging about getting away with it.But then who said life was fair.


	Logged

malcolm

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 7526

I Love Lowestoft!

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #19 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 11:50 AM »

I should write to the license people and complain. Its a thought.


	Logged

Forever Yellow

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #20 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 04:15 PM »

nauticaljane has picked up on another aspect that could prove far more expensive than the TV license. I'm no legal expert, but you need to be careful because I suspect you may indeed have found one of the loopholes in the system. The problem comes from not the TV license, but from the material contained within it. This copyright material is licensed to the broadcasters for, well, broadcasting. Part of that licensing arrangement is to allow you to store the information in PVRs etc - However, Sky on some of their PPV sport and entertainment programmes have a self-destruct date, and after this time the programme is no longer visible, even though you paid for it as a premium service. This annoys their customers who don't understand how something they bought, isn't their to keep for ever. It's in the copyright license the supplier has with Sky, and then Sky with you. If you have material you have recorded without your TV license (assuming your opinion on that is legally upheld at some point in a test case) then you do NOT have permission to have it from the owners of the copyright. Pretty well everything in it will be licensed from various sources and although you could attempt to gain clearance - it would cost you, because no one-shot system is in force for what you have - a one-off, individual copy of something the copyright owners never intended.

So let's say you record an episode of Midsummer Murders on ITV. As it wasn't supplied to you by the TV license using the systems set up to deal with broadcasting. It's quite possible you would be infringing visual and audio copyright, and potentially even the performance contracts the cast had with ITV. Nowadays actors rarely get repeat fees, but they do get extra fees when their work is transferred on a new or different medium. Broadcast or near broadcast real time is different to streaming on demand, and on-line file sharing.

Obviously, nobody is going to be interested in one-off stuff like you as an individual, but that doesn't mean it's legally sound - just not worth the bother in investigating. In your case, you've prevented their common law access, so they know that to do anything investigation wise will cost them lots of money - so it's not worth the bother. However if somebody in your house buys a TV from tesco or similar, and they receive the notification shops have to make by law, then they could assume you have in your possession a television receiver, have prevented access and the conclusion is you are evading the license - and that no doubt would be much easier to prove.

Is it really worth all the fuss and bother? Perhaps good as a legal exercise, but at some point, don't you just want to watch TV when it's actually on?


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Rosie

Super Member

Posts: 208

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #21 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 04:43 PM »

Absolutely well said wave

, if you want to watch pay, if you don't hit, the off switch. Its your choice, no such thing in this world as a free lunch! People should put their efforts into doing something far more productive. Wake up and smell the coffee! wave


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #22 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 05:18 PM »

I suspect your quest is really about the principle of TV licensing - and I suppose that now with so many channels, it is perhaps a little odd that just one broadcaster gets the money, even if you don't watch their programmes - but it's the law, and I note no political party wanted to change it?

Looking for legal loopholes is fine and dandy, but unless you really enjoy the process - which maybe you do, it seems a bit futile. Removing the common law permission to enter also looks very shady. I'm NOT doing it, but I've taken steps to make certain you can't actually check I haven't got a portable TV hidden away somewhere. It's rather like in the war when people hid radio sets in the false floorboardhole, and had ze flashiiing bed knobs. Do you really peep through spyholes to make sure the licensing police aren't across the road with binoculars or is that man up the telephone pole checking you are watching the live feed by tapping your broadband link.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

snowdrop

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 4694

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #23 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 05:41 PM »

i know little about this subject but if you removed all bbc channels and used sky only would you need licence.then just watch bbc catch up.James Whale the radio presenter did that and he maintained he was within the law.i buy me licence so not up on these things


	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #24 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 05:46 PM »

It's not connected to any channels. The licence is related to whether you have a tv signal receiver or not, irrespective of what channels you watch.


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

snowdrop

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 4694

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #25 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 07:23 PM »

that licence go towards bbc website which was very good but loads are being taken off


	Logged

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #26 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 07:44 PM »

Im not sure if cybertrax's argument was about pvr's or simply that he only watches BBC programmes via iPlayer and his laptop. I'd have thought that as iPlayer is a service provided by the BBC that the same rules would apply but there must be a dividing line somewhere. For example, if I watch the box-set DVD's of Only fools and Horses on my laptop do i need a licence to watch it? if I buy software on a DVD the actual value of the dvd is only a few pence and the remainder of the price is the cost of the licence to use that software. Does the cost of a TV dvd include the licence to watch it?

I used to work at a local holiday village and was visited by the TV licensing people who told me i should pay for a TV licence for each of the 60 bungalows on the site. I pointed out that the manager's house had a TV licence and that covered the other 60 bungalows, they said that was incorrect, I needed to purchase 60 more licences and ignorance of the law was no excuse. I pointed out that the homes were empty for more than 6 months of the year and when they were occupied they were occupied by people who were on holiday, who had their own licence but couldn't be at home to watch their TV at the same time as they were on holiday. this argument didn't get any traction either. We agreed to disagree, i refused to buy any more licences and never heard any more about it.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #27 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 08:27 PM »

Nowadays, the tactic is to threaten, threaten again and then threaten for the final time - and then give up, because on hot issues, many people would choose to go to court, even if it costs them, just to have their say. enough people pay on the first, second or third threat to make it viable to forget the others.

Good example - you know on the motorway the signs that say, Tired - take a break, don't kill someone - well I was on the motorway, and was very tired, so I did as they suggested, I stopped, bought a coffee at three quid or whatever, took it back to the car and then promptly fell asleep. Three hours later I woke up, felt better and continued my journey. two weeks later I get a £90 fixed penalty for staying over two hours in the car park. Pay within a week, £30 discount, contest it, £30 extra.

I wanted to fight, my wife paid it early to save £30!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Trigger

Forum Moderator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 8472

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #28 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 09:09 PM »

"Government may axe TV licence…and replace it with a new household charge" [in Ireland!]

THE GOVERNMENT may introduce a household charge to replace the TV licence – aimed at forcing those who don’t have a TV set but watch television on their computers or mobile devices to pay.

The Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte said in the Dáil yesterday that “young people are not necessarily at all accessing television through their television set” and that the department is attempting to “measure the extent of evasion”.

RTE reports that there is a review currently underway in his department on the current system, and that he had “an open mind” on the question of introducing a new household charge. The Irish Times adds that such a charge may also fund independent broadcasting entities.

Meanwhile, the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland have called for RTE Radio 1 to become an entirely publicly funded station without advertising revenue. In Britain, the BBC says that people who watch catch-up programmes on the iPlayer do not need a licence. People who watch live TV on their computer or mobile device do need a licence – however, the TV Licensing authority has not quite worked out how to police this requirement.

http://www.thejournal.ie/goverment-may-axe-tv-licence-and-replace-it-with-a-new-household-charge-116236-May2011/


	Logged

CybertraxUK

Guest

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #29 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 09:48 PM »

After much umming and erring regarding the 'want' to post on here, I waited for a while - frankly because I was rather het up about posts on here. This appears to be rather controversial, and I apologise if this upsets people but I wont be answering the majority of postings as I dont want to cause any more arguments than has already happened. I would much rather we just agree to disagree - debating is a good things but arguing is not, in my opinion.

However......
Triggers post above actually made me think in clear terms what I have thought before but failed to put into clear words. I would like to ask the question for people to consider.

What is the difference between watching a tv programme on a catchup service such as the iPlayer, and watching a tv programme that has been recorded on a PVR such as Sky+? Both could be watching the same programme broadcast live a week earlier, and both could then show the same programme at the same time. But according to popular opinion on here, the iPlayer show would not need a license, yet the PVR show would! What do you think are the legal and/or moral differences? Also, what are the technical differences?! (Im sure Paulears can help with that one!)


	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #30 Posted: 06 April 2011 at 09:55 PM »

The difference is that with iPlayer, you are receiving and watching the programme later than the original broadcast.
With a PVR, you may be watching the programme later, but your equipment still received it as it was broadcast.


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

Trigger

Forum Moderator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 8472

Re: Why 'some' people may not need a TV License. « Reply #31 Posted: 07 April 2011 at 06:52 AM »

Cyber - questions about iPlayer v PVR etc are way above my head - having only used iPlayer for the first time a few weeks ago! But I believe that not all BBC programs are available for download on iPlayer, but that all programs are recordable via 'live' television.

A question along these lines was on another forum I use - where someone posted that he had wanted to watch an episode of “The Tudors” using iPlayer and his Humax. He searched for the programme which was marked “Not Available”. So he watched it on the laptop.

I searched Google and found this link http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/announcements/tudors_series4_bbciplayer


	Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] | Go Up

Admin options

Jump to: